There is a world of difference btween alcohol addiction and smoking. Very few smokers want to punch someone's lights out once they've had a few fags. I personally find heavy drinking repugnant and heavy drinkers moreso. However, it is their right to enjoy a tipple or several and I don't begrudge them that freedom.
More, not less, tolerance for our fellows would make this a better place.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Sid - I can have a pint, two pints in a pub and it would affect no-one else, in fact very few people would get rolling drunk with just a couple of drinks causing a nuisance to people.
Just one ciggerette in a pub results in the waste matter getting into the eyes and lungs of those sat around them. Very unpleasant and nasty it is too.
That is the big difference and why smoking is right to be banned from enclosed public spaces.
Hear Hear
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
not being blinckerd hear but i have just as much right to smoke in a pub or resturant as any has to drink and eat in the said places.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
just a final note,if every person in the uk adhered to goverment advice,ie stop smoking,drinking and start using public transport [a green measure encourage by hm goverment] wouldnt it be a dull place to live.futher more if did the afore mentiond where would the goverment get the lost revenue from.increased tax on your hard earned wages.
I don't think anyone is disputing that being in an enclosed space with smokers can be unpleasant for non-smokers. And that is why there should be the choice to go somewhere free of cigarette smoke for non-smokers. However, there is absolutely no argument that smokers also deserve the same right of choice as non-smokers, unless one wants to live in a totalitarian state, which I presume none of us does.
Therefore, as free thinking adults living in a democracy, we ought to recognise the current law removes rights from a large portion of our community and get it amended so as to allow premises owners the right to choose whether they want to allow smoking or not.
What argument can there be against restoring lost rights and freedoms.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i think that the new government will reverse the ban eventually, thay always stress the importance of freedom of choice.
Sid - because it never works! Before long smokers would be everywhere again, there would be much fewer places one could go for freash air alongside a pint and a pie, and it would start all over again. Freedom of choice is an old chestnut rolled out to justify abuse, too often.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
bern,isnt that a blinkerd view.
What we see Brian is an, "I'm alright Jack" mentality from non-smokers who blatantly refuse to see the injustice that has been perpetrated here.
No-one is advocating going back to mixed environments, just a return to freedom of choice. If the ban has been as successful as claimed there won't be a rush back to smoking establishments, therefore there is no danger from amending the Act.
See, I don't agree. I used to smoke, and I didn't care where I smoked. It didn't matter to me that others choked, because I didn't notice it. I was oblivious. Smokers are. And if establishments have a choice to make they will choose the smokers, because on average smokers will spend more in a pub - fact. And if smokers can go to the pub legitimately and not smoke outside, they will spend more money inside. The losers will be the non-smokers just wanting to have some fresh air. And not die.
AND - smoking IS different - it kills the smokers and it kills their families. I saw a woman driving her kids in her car today, smoking. Enclosed space, kids, smoke. Smoking is different because people see it as ok, and it isn't because it kills people - that is a fact.
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
It really does not have to be complicated, the simple solution is for those pubs that undertake any form of food operation. i.e. 8 Bells, Blakes, White Horse remain 'no smoking' venues, whereas pubs such as The Roman Quay, Golden Lion and Prince Albert be allowed smokers, should the Licensee agree.
I could say that I have the right to travel on a bus or aircraft without being squashed by somebody who over indulges in all the wrong foods and whose backside is so big it infringes on my space, or somebody that reeks of cheap wine or alcohol.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Bern - lets face it, smokers are so desperate for their drug fixation to them freedom of choice extends only to being allowed to partake their habit. They totally fail to understand just how utterly revolting their waste matter is to non-smokers.
They simply do not care two hoots about the rights and freedom of choice of non-smokers not to suffer their fumes.
No - this ban will not be reversed because freedom of choice is important, the freedom to choose not to breathe smoke. Smokers have the freedom to indulge whenever and wherever they want as long as it is not in a place that exposes non-smokers to their habit.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
is anyone forcing people that dislike smoking to enter establishments where people smoke?
that is the simple fact on this issue.
i do not enter a mosque because i am not a muslim.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
HOWARD;
Before the ban I used to hate going to restaurants cos every time some shit would lkight up a fag as im about to eat.
it didnt happen now and again it was often.
BarryW, with all due respect, you are arguing like a Blairite! Dave1 makes a sound argument.
I am a smoker, but do not smoke in the house or in the car. Before there was a ban I smoked in pubs, but not if I was in the company of non-smokers. I no longer go to pubs, unless I go with non-smokers, and when I do, I drink soda water which is much much cheaper than a pint of beer. I am sure there are many like me.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
keith
you are missing the point entirely.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
nope
been a smoker myself
even tried to be even handed by stating maybe there should be some smokers places and some non smokers.
I wouldnt go i a pub of smokers through choice again
or restuarant come to that
Yep, you did say that Keith. I must confess, I too hate dining when there are people smoking nearby. So, for me, Dave1's suggestion is really sensible.
Guest 673- Registered: 16 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,388
Dave1's suggestion was the obvious answer from the start, separate pubs for smokers and non-smokers. It was probably not entertained because it would not have done for the former to have turned out to have been heaving and the latter virtually deserted, as would have been the inevitable outcome.
This must be the umpteenth thread on smoking with the same people saying the same things over and over again, ad nauseam, as though none of it had ever been said before. All it lacks so far is BarryW performing his usual trick of stating what is spectacularly blooming obvious to everyone else followed by GEDDITT!!!!!
Don't care myself. I hardly ever drink any more and am not remotely tempted by the prospect of standing outside a characterless gastropub inhabited by a thin sprinkling of squeaky clean, sweet smelling, sanctimonious, holier than thou non-smokers. As far as I am concerned, they all deserve each other and good luck to them, the more the merrier. I used to go out for a drink and a fag, not a night in an antiseptic outpost of a members-only health farm.